Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Research Articles

Comparison of lateral flank approach and low anterior access for single port (SP) retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: an analysis from the single port advanced research consortium (SPARC).

Single Port (SP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) can be performed via retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach. We aim to compare outcomes of two commonly described incisions for retroperitoneal SP RPN: lateral flank approach (LFA) and low anterior access (LAA). We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN from 2018 to 2023 as part of a large multi-institute collaboration (SPARC). Baseline demographic, clinical, tumor-specific characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ2, t test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable analyses were conducted using robust and logistic regressions. A total of 70 patients underwent SP retroperitoneal RPN, with 44 undergoing LAA. Overall, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The LAA group exhibited significantly lower median RENAL scores (8 vs. 5, p < 0.001) and more varied tumor locations (p = 0.002). In the bivariate analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in ischemia time, estimated blood loss, or complication rates between the groups. However, the LAA group had longer operative times (101 vs. 134min, p < 0.001), but was more likely to undergo a same-day discharge (p < 0.001). When controlling for other variables, LAA was associated with shorter ischemia time (p = 0.005), but there was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.348) and length of stay (p = 0.122). Both LFA and LAA are acceptable approaches for SP retroperitoneal RPN with comparable perioperative outcomes. This early data suggests the LAA is more versatile for varying tumor locations; however, larger cohort studies are needed to ascertain whether there is an overall difference in patient recovery.

Postoperative outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score matched comparison focused on patient mobilization, return to bowel function, and pain

Literature meta-analyses comparing transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) suggested some advantages favoring retroperitoneoscopy. Unfortunately, patient-centered data about mobilization, canalization, pain, and use of painkillers remained anecdotally reported. The present analysis aimed to compare transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal RPN focusing on such outcomes. Study data including baseline variables, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes of interest were retrieved from prospectively maintained institutional database (Jan 2018–May 2023) and compared between treatment groups (transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal). Propensity score matching was performed using the STATA command psmatch2 considering age, sex, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, RENAL score, tumor size and location, and cT stage. The logit of propensity score was used for matching, with a 1:1 nearest neighbor algorithm, without replacement (caliper of 0.001). A total of 442 patients were included in the unmatched analysis: 330 underwent transperitoneal RPN 112 retroperitoneal RPN. After propensity score, 98 patients who underwent retroperitoneal RPN were matched with 98 patients who underwent transperitoneal RPN. Matched cohorts had comparable patients’ demographics and tumor features. We found similarity between the two laparoscopic accesses in all outcomes but in blood loss, which favored retroperitoneoscopic RPN (median 150 (IQR 100–300) versus 100 (IQR 0–100) ml, p = 0.03). No differences were found in terms of time to mobilization with ambulation, return to complete bowel function, postoperative pain, but higher painkillers consumption was reported after transperitoneal RPN (p < 0.004). The present study compared the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach to RPN, confirming the similarity between the two approaches in all perioperative outcomes. Based on our findings, the choice of the surgical approach to RPN may remain something that the surgeon decides.

Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robot partial nephrectomy for kidney tumors

Background: Surgical techniques for small kidney tumors have been developed for decades, from open to robotic surgery. There are two approaches for partial nephrectomy: transperitoneal and retroperitoneal. We divided robotic partial nephrectomy cases into transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) and compared the outcomes.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our hospital between November 2019 and May 2022. We reviewed patients’ demographic and perioperative data. Results: Seventy robotic partial nephrectomies were performed (35 TRPN and 35 RRPN). There were significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), tumor size, and the RENAL Nephrometry Score (RNS) between those who underwent TRPN and those who underwent RRPN. Larger tumors were noted in the TRPN group, and the RNS was higher. In contrast, the operation time was shorter, EBL was lower, and tumors were more likely to be located in the posterior and lower portions in the RRPN group than in the TRPN group.Conclusions: In our study, RRPN had advantages over TRPN in terms of operation time and EBL. However, TRPN tended to be performed rather than RRPN for tumors that were more complex in terms of size or RNS. Although the choice between RRPN and TRPN depends on the surgeon's preference, RRPN seems effective for treating small kidney tumors if selected appropriately.

Technique and outcomes of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy.

Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (rRPN) has numerous advantages over transperitoneal surgery, including direct access to the renal hilum and posterior tumors, and avoidance of the peritoneal cavity in patients with a hostile abdomen. Although the use of the retroperitoneal approach has increased over the last decade, there is little literature on robotic retroperitoneal radical nephrectomy (rRRN), which has similar benefits over the transperitoneal approach. The aim of this study was to describe our technique for robotic retroperitoneal nephrectomy (rRN) and assess its feasibility and outcomes at a high-volume center. A retrospective review of patients who underwent some form of rRN [rRRN, robotic retroperitoneal simple nephrectomy (rRSN), or robotic retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy (rRNU)] at a single institution between 2013 and 2023. Patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative complication rates were assessed. The technique for rRN was detailed. A total of 13 renal units in 12 patients were included for analysis (7 rRRN, 5 rRSN, 1 rRNU). Median patient age was 64.0 years, and median body mass index (BMI) was 36.0 kg/m2. Indications for retroperitoneal surgery were prior abdominal surgery in all patients, including three with bowel diversions, super morbid central obesity in two patients, and a large ventral hernia in one patient. Median operative time was 213 minutes and median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 85 cc. Median postoperative length of stay (LOS) was 3 days, and only one patient experienced a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complication within 90 days of surgery. The retroperitoneal approach for robotic-assisted nephrectomy is feasible and associated with similar outcomes as the transperitoneal approach. This approach may prove beneficial in select patients with significant prior abdominal surgery including those who are morbidly obese.

Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy in Patients with Obesity.

Introduction: We aim to compare transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in obese patients. Obesity and RP fat can complicate RPN, especially in the RP approach where working space is limited. Materials and Methods: Using a multi-institutional database, we analyzed 468 obese patients undergoing RPN for a renal mass (86 [18.38%] RP, 382 [81.62%] TP). Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m2*. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed adjusting for age, previous abdominal surgery, tumor size, R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score, tumor location, surgical date, and participating centers. Baseline characteristics and perioperative and postoperative data were compared. Results: In the propensity score-matched cohort, 79 (50%) TP patients were matched with 79 (50%) RP patients. The RP group had more posterior tumors (67 [84.81%], RP versus 23 [29.11%], TP; P < .001), while the other baseline characteristics were comparable. Warm ischemia time (interquartile range; 15 [10, 12], RP versus 14 [10, 17] minutes, TP; P = .216), operative time (129 [116, 165], RP versus 130 [95, 180] minutes, TP; P = .687), estimated blood loss (50 [50, 100], RP versus 75 [50, 150] mL, TP; P = .129), length of stay (1 [1, 1], RP versus 1 [1, 2] day, TP; P = .319), and major complication rate (1 [1.27%], RP versus 3 [3.80%], TP; P = .620) were similar. No significant difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate and delta estimated glomerular filtration at follow-up. Conclusion: TP and RP RPN yielded similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes in obese patients. Obesity should not be a factor in determining optimal approach for RPN.

Long term experience of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy as the default approach in the management of renal masses: should the paradigm shift?

Although retroperitoneal surgery has demonstrated a better quality of recovery compared to transperitoneal routes, Retroperitoneal Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RRAPN) remains proportionally infrequent. As the boundaries of what is achievable robotically continue to be pushed, we present our experience at a high-volume tertiary referral centre that specialises in retroperitoneal surgery, exploring its feasibility as standard of care in the management of small renal masses. A prospective database of 784 RAPNs (2009-2020) was reviewed and 721 RRAPNs (92%) were performed at our centre. In our practice, we utilise a four-port approach to RRAPN. Patient, tumour and operative characteristics were assessed and both oncological outcomes and trifecta and pentafecta achievements were determined. Pentafecta was defined as achieving trifecta (negative surgical margin, no post-operative complications and WIT of < 25min) plus over 90% estimated GFR preservation and no CKD stage upgrading at 1year. Multivariate analysis was conducted to predict peri-operative factors which may prevent achieving a trifecta/pentafecta outcome. From 784 cases, 112 RAPNs were performed for imperative reasons, whilst the remainder were elective. Mean BMI ± s.d amongst our cohort was 28.6 ± 5.7. Mean tumour size was 3.1cm (range 0.8-10.5cm) and 47% of cases were stratified as intermediate/high risk using R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scoring. Forty-six patients had lesions in a hilar location, and 31% were anterior. Median blood loss was 30mls, with an open conversion rate of 1% and transfusion rate of 1.6%. Median warm ischaemic time (WIT) was 21min, positive surgical margins were found in 4% and our post-operative Clavien 3/ > complication rate was 2.6%. We had a 1-day median length of stay with a 30day readmission rate of 2%. Of 631 patients (80%) with a definitive histological diagnosis of cancer, 23% had T1b/ > disease. Over a mean 15month follow-up period (range 1-125months), 2% of patients developed recurrences and our cohort demonstrated a 99% 5year cancer specific survival. Trifecta was achieved in 67% of cases and pentafecta in 47%. Age (p = 0.05), operative time (p = 0.008), pT1b tumours (p = 0.03), R.E.N.A.L score and blood loss (p = 0.001) were found to statistically significantly influence achievement of trifecta. Pentafecta achievement was influenced by R.E.N.A.L score (p = 0.008), operative time (p = 0.001) and blood loss (p = 0.001). We demonstrate the retroperitoneal approach in RAPN is feasible and safe irrespective of lesion location and complexity. In the hands of high-volume centres that are skilled in the retroperitoneal approach the benefits of retroperitoneal surgery can be extended even to challenging cohorts of patients without compromising their oncological or functional outcomes.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Completely Lower Pole Renal Tumors.

(1) Background: For completely lower pole renal tumors, we compared the perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy via transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. (2) Methods: Complete lower pole renal tumors were defined as tumors that received 1 point for the “L” element of the R.E.N.A.L. and located at the lower pole of kidney. After confirming consistency in baseline characteristics, oncological and functional benefits were compared. Pentafecta achievement was used to represent the perioperative optimal outcome, followed by multivariate analysis of factors associated with the lack of pentafecta achievement. (3) Results: Among 151 patients identified, 116 (77%) underwent robotic partial nephrectomy via a transperitoneal approach and 35 (23%) via a retroperitoneal approach. Patients undergoing transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy experienced more blood loss than those undergoing retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (50 mL vs. 40 mL, p = 0.015). No significant differences were identified for operative time (120 min vs. 120 min), ischemia time (19 min vs. 20 min), positive surgical margins (0.0% vs. 2.86%), postoperative rate of complication (12.07% vs. 5.71%). No significant differences were identified in pathologic variables, eGFR decline in postoperative 12-month (3.9% vs. 5.4%) functional follow-up. Multivariate cox analysis showed that tumor size (OR: 0.523; 95% CI: 0.371−0.736; p < 0.001) alone was independently correlated to the achievement of pentafecta. (4) Conclusions: For completely lower pole renal tumors, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy provide similar outcomes. These two surgical approaches remain feasible options for these cases.

Early outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: evaluating surgical success with margin, ischemia, and complication score.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the minimum number of required cases for successful robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for an experienced surgeon in transperitoneal robotic surgery. Our prospectively collected clinic database was evaluated retrospectively, and 50 patients who underwent robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy by a single experienced surgeon from January 2019 to February 2023 were included in this study. Demographic and perioperative data and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores were noted. margin, ischemia, and complication score was used to predict surgical success. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine how many cases were required to achieve margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity and to apply the off-clamp technique. Also, the first 25 patients were assigned to Group 1 and the second 25 patients to Group 2, and the data were compared between the groups. The patients' demographic data and tumor characteristics were similar in the groups. The off-clamp technique and sutureless technique rates in Group 2 were significantly higher than that in Group 1. Margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity was observed in 60% (n=15) of Group 1 and 96% (n=24) of Group 2. At receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the 25th and later cases were statistically significant in terms of margin, ischemia, and complication score positivity. In terms of performing surgery with the off-clamp technique, the 28th and subsequent cases were statistically significant. A total of 25 or more cases appear to be sufficient to provide optimal surgical results in robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for an experienced surgeon.

A comparison of outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with completely endophytic kidney tumors

IntroductionRetroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) has been shown to have comparable outcomes to the transperitoneal approach for renal tumors. However, this may not be true for completely endophytic tumors as they pose significant challenges in RPN with increased complication rates. Hence, we sought to compare the safety and feasibility of retroperitoneal RPN to transperitoneal RPN for completely endophytic tumors. MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RPN for a completely endophytic renal mass using either transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach from our multi-institutional database (n = 177). Patients who had a solitary kidney, prior ipsilateral surgery, multiple/bilateral tumors, and horseshoe kidneys were excluded from the analysis. Overall, 156 patients were evaluated (112 [71.8%] transperitoneal, 44 [28.2%] retroperitoneal). Baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data were compared between the surgical transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach using Chi-square test, Fishers exact test, t test, Mood median test and Mann Whitney U test. ResultsOf the 156 patients in this study, 86 (56.9%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 58 (13) years. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 approaches. Compared to transperitoneal approach, retroperitoneal approach had similar ischemia time (19.6 [SD = 7.6] minutes vs. 19.5 [SD = 10.2] minutes, P = 0.952), operative time (157.5 [SD = 44.8] minutes vs. 160.2 [SD = 47.3] minutes, P = 0.746), median estimated blood loss (50 ml [IQR: 50, 150] vs. 100 ml [IQR: 50, 200], P = 0.313), median length of stay (1 [IQR: 1, 2] day vs. 1 [IQR: 1, 2] day, P = 0.126) and major complication rate (2 [4.6%] vs. 3 [2.7%], P = 0.621). No difference was observed in positive surgical margin rate (P = 0.1.00), delta eGFR (P = 0.797) and de novo chronic kidney disease occurrence (P = 1.000). ConclusionRetroperitoneal and transperitoneal RPN yielded similar perioperative and functional outcomes in patients with completely endophytic tumors. In well-selected patients with purely endophytic tumors, either a retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach could be considered without compromising perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Novel Gerota-edge-sling technique facilitates retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparative study

BackgroundRetroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy is markedly restricted by limited space and visual field. We introduced a novel Gerota-edge-sling (GES) technique with self-designed traction devices to overcome these defects by attaching Gerota fascia to abdominal wall, and comparatively evaluated its utilization with routine technique.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive patients who underwent routine (control group) or GES assisted (GES group) retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors in our hospital between March 2018 and June 2020. Clinical data of perioperative outcomes and complications were collected and compared. Comparison of outcomes between anterior versus posterior tumor subgroups was also conducted. Linear regression analysis was used to define the relationship between dissection time and perinephric fat status in each group.ResultsTotally 103 patients were included, 48 in control and 55 in GES group respectively. All the procedures were completed successfully without conversion or positive surgical margin. GES group had significantly decreased console time (91 ± 36 min vs. 117 ± 41 min, p < 0.01) and dissection time (67 ± 35 min vs. 93 ± 38 min, p < 0.01) than control, while ischemia time, blood loss, and nephrometry score comparable between them. No major postoperative complications occurred. Dissection time of GES group was notably shorter than that of control in both anterior/posterior subgroups. Only in control group, dissection time was positively associated with perinephric fat status.ConclusionsThe GES technique acting as an adjunct to robotic arms with space-sparing feature, notably improves surgical exposure and facilitates dissection in retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy, while having great feasibility, efficacy and safety.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients With Complete Upper Pole Renal Tumors.

ObjectivesWe compared the outcomes of transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) for complete upper pole renal masses (1 point for the “L” component of the RENAL scoring system).Material and MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent either TRPN or RRPN from 2013 to 2016. Baseline demographics and perioperative, functional, and oncological results were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors related to pentafecta achievement (ischemia time ≤25 min, negative margin, perioperative complication free, glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation >90%, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging).ResultsNo significant differences between TRPN vs. RRPN were noted for operating time (110 vs. 114 min, p = 0.870), renal artery clamping time (19 vs. 18 min, p = 0.248), rate of positive margins (0.0% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.502), postoperative complication rates (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.140). TRPN was associated with a more estimated blood loss (50 vs. 40 ml, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in pathologic variables, rate of eGFR decline for postoperative 12-month (9.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.449) functional follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified that only RENAL score (odd ratio: 0.641; 95% confidence interval: 0.455–0.904; p = 0.011) was independently associated with the pentafecta achievement.ConclusionsFor completely upper pole renal masses, both TRPN and RRPN have good and comparable results. Both surgical approaches remain viable options in the treatment of these cases.

Incisional Lumbodorsal Hernias Following Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomies for Small Renal Masses at a High-Volume Tertiary Referral Center.

Introduction: Herein we evaluate the incidence of incisional lumbodorsal hernia (ILDH) after retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) and associated patient-specific and tumor-specific risk factors. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the role of routine lumbodorsal fascial closure for the prevention of ILDH. Methodology: This is a retrospective review of our robotic partial nephrectomy database of all RRPNs performed at Washington University School of Medicine from 2000 to 2020. Postoperative imaging was reviewed for evidence of ILDH. A clinically significant hernia was defined as the protrusion of visceral organ(s) through the lumbodorsal fascia. Patient and tumor characteristics, and fascial closure techniques were analyzed to determine predictors of ILDH. Results: In total, 150 patients underwent RRPN between 2007 and 2020 with an average follow-up of 4.9 (1-37) months. Twelve (8%) ILDHs were identified. Ten (6.7%) patients had herniated retroperitoneal fat whereas 2 (1.3%) patients had herniated colon. All were asymptomatic and managed conservatively. On matched cohort comparison, patients with ILDH had larger tumors than patients without an incisional hernia (3.9 cm vs 2.8 cm, p = 0.029). In general, patient factors were no different between patients with and without ILDH. However, coronary artery disease (CAD) was more prevalent in patients with ILDH (33.3% vs 10.9%, p = 0.028). Patients with ILDH were more likely to have a port site extended for specimen extraction (66.7% vs 38.2%, p = 0.069). Lumbodorsal fascial closure and type of suture material were not associated with prevention of ILDH (p = 0.545, p = 0.637). Conclusion: The radiographic incidence of lumbar incisional hernias after RRPN without routine fascial closure of the extraction incision was 8%. All were asymptomatic and did not require surgical repair. Larger tumor size and CAD were associated with ILDH.

The future of "Retro" robotic partial nephrectomy.

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for appropriately selected renal masses. Recent surgical advancements and adoption of the robotic technique has led to greater adoption of nephron-sparing surgery. Robotic PN was initially described via the transperitoneal (TP) approach, however, retroperitoneal (RP) access is possible and in some cases more desirable. In the RP approach, the kidney is accessed from its posterior surface and the intraperitoneal space is avoided. The RP approach to PN has the benefit of avoiding intraperitoneal viscera and colonic mobilization in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. The technique also eliminates the need for renal unit rotation in patients with posterior tumors and affords access to masses directly posterior to the renal hilum. The RP and TP approach to PN have shown similar oncologic and perioperative outcomes. Several recent studies have reported shorter operative times and lengths of stay (LOS) with comparable warm ischemia times for the RP approach when compared to transperitoneal PN (tPN). Given the indispensable deliverables of this approach in select patients, robotic retroperitoneal PN (rPN) should be in the armamentarium of a versatile urologic kidney surgeon. This review describes the current state of rPN and compares the indications and outcomes of the TP and RP approaches.

VJY03 - Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for a horseshoe kidney

VJY03 - Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy for a horseshoe kidney

P091 - Comparison by Pentafecta criteria of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for large renal tumors

P091 - Comparison by Pentafecta criteria of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for large renal tumors

Feasibility of adopting retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy after extensive transperitoneal experience.

Adoption of robotic retroperitoneal surgery has lagged behind robotic surgery adoption in general due to unique challenges of access and anatomy. We evaluated our initial results with robotic retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) after transitioning from exclusively transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) to evaluate safety and any identifiable learning curve. We evaluated our single-surgeon (RA) prospective partial nephrectomy database since adopting RRPN routinely for posterior tumors in 2017. The surgeon had previously performed 410 partial nephrectomies by this time. Outcomes were compared after the initial 30 RRPN. Of 137 patients since adopting RRPN, two attempted RRPN were converted to TRPN without complications due to morbid obesity affecting access, and 30 RRPN were completed (107 TRPN). There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, mean tumor size, or RENAL score between groups. Mean blood loss was lower in RRPN (53mL vs 99mL, P < 0.05), but there were no transfusions in either group. There was no difference in mean operative (127.8min vs 141.2min, P = 0.06) or ischemia time (11.1min vs 10.8min, P = 0.98). There were no positive margins in either group. Mean length of stay was lower in RRPN due to more same-day discharges (0.7 vs 0.9days). There were no 90-day Clavien III-V complications. One RRPN patient was readmitted POD#8 overnight for hypoxia, and one visited the emergency room POD#7 for persistent pain. All three TRPN complications were managed as outpatients. Successful adoption of RRPN can be achieved readily after experience with TRPN. Outcomes were immediately comparable without any identifiable learning curve.

Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy by pentafecta perioperative and renal functional outcomes.

602 Background: To compare and analyze surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of transperitoneal (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN). Methods: Out of 566 consecutive patients who underwent RAPN by a single surgeon from December 2008 to July 2017, this study included 523 patients (TRPN 310, RRPN 213) who evaluated preoperative and 1-year postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Our primary endpoint was to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of both approaches by the measure of Pentafecta (negative surgical margin, no 30-day complication, warm ischemic time (WIT) ≤25 minutes, return of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to &gt; 90% from baseline and no upstaging of chronic kidney disease). Secondary endpoint was to find the factors associated with Pentafecta by multivariate regression analysis. Results: No significant difference was found in terms of age, BMI, laterality, history of hypertension or diabetes, ASA grade, tumor size and RENAL nephrometry score. These outcomes were lower in the RRPN group: operative time [median (IQR) 244 (202-295) vs. 273 (230-314); p &lt; 0.001], WIT [median (IQR) 19 (15-25) vs. 21 (16-27); p &lt; 0.008] and estimated blood loss (EBL) [median (IQR) 100 (60-200) vs. 150 (100-200); p &lt; 0.003]. Hospital stay, baseline eGFR, 1-year postoperative eGFR, the rate of Pentafecta achievement, recurrence and complications were not different. The rate of WIT ≤ 25 minutes was solely significantly different (TRPN 69.7% vs. RRPN 77.9%, p = 0.045) in the Pentafecta criteria. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor size [OR (95% CI) 0.641 (0.536-0.767), p &lt; 0.001) and hospital stays (OR 0.639, p &lt; 0.001) as predictive for lack of Pentafecta. Conclusions: RRPN demonstrated less operative time, WIT and EBL than TPRN. Pentafecta achievements were equivalent in both approaches. Tumor size and hospital stays were found as predictive factors of Pentafecta.

Re: Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

Re: Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

A Multi-Institutional Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy for cT1 Posterior Tumors

To compare the perioperative and renal functional outcome between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TP-RPN and RP-RPN) in the largest cohort to date of RP-RPN for posterior tumors. We identified 519 patients who met eligibility criteria and underwent TP-RPN (n = 357, 68.8%) or RP-RPN (n = 162, 31.2%) for a posteriorly located cT1 tumor. Patients were propensity score (PS) matched on preoperative and tumor-specific characteristics. Perioperative outcome and renal function outcome at median follow-up 22 months were compared. Between the PS matched TP-RPN (n = 157, 50%) and RP-RPN (n = 157, 50%) patients, operative time (OT) (185.0 versus 157.0, P < .001) was longer in TP-RPN versus RP-RPN patients. No significant differences in ischemia time (P = .618), blood loss (P = .178), positive surgical margins (P = .501), overall postoperative complications (P = .861), or progression of chronic kidney disease stage at median 22 months (P = .599) were identified. Length of stay (LOS) was reduced in RP-RPN patients (P = .017), but was not different once an institution used a postoperative day (POD)-1 discharge protocol (P = .579). Operative times were similar between groups in patients with obesity (P = .293) or a cT1b renal mass (P = 908). RP-RPN for posterior tumors resulted in reduced OT and a shorter LOS compared to TP-RPN. When surgeons aimed to routinely discharge patients on POD-1, the surgical approach did not influence LOS. Operative time was similar between RP and TP-RPN among patients with obesity or a cT1b renal mass. All other measures, including ischemia time, blood loss, margin rates, complications, and renal function, did not differ between the two approaches.

Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). A systematic review of the literature was performed through January 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach for RAPN were deemed eligible for inclusion. Seven retrospective case-control studies were identified and included in the analysis, with a total number of 1379 patients (866 for transperitoneal group; 513 for retroperitoneal group). In the retroperitoneal group, tumors were slightly larger [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.29 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.54; p = 0.02], and more frequently located posterior/lateral (odds ratio: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.90; p = 0.01). In two of the studies only posterior tumors had been included. Both operating time (WMD 20.17 min; 95% CI 6.46-33.88; p = 0.004) and estimated blood loss (WMD 54.57 mL; 95% CI 6.73-102.4; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the retroperitoneal group. In addition, length of stay was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (WMD 0.46 days; CI 95% 0.15-0.76; p = 0.003). No differences were found regarding overall (p = 0.67) and major (p = 0.82) postoperative complications, warm ischemia time (p = 0.96), and positive surgical margins (p = 0.95). Retroperitoneal RAPN can offer in select patients similar outcomes to those of the most common transperitoneal RAPN. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for posterior upper pole and perihilar tumors and associated with reduction in operative time and hospital stay. Robotic surgeons should be ideally familiar with both approaches to adapt their surgical strategy to confront renal neoplasms from a position of technical advantage and ultimately optimize outcomes.